893.00/6–2749
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Far Eastern
Affairs (Butterworth) to the Secretary of State
[Washington,] June 27, 1949.
Subject: British Attitude With Respect to Aerial Bombardment
of Shanghai and Action by the Chinese Government to Close the Chinese Ports
Now Under Communist Control.
Attached hereto are copies of two communications which the British Embassy
has informally supplied the Department.
Tab A is a summary of Mr. Bevin’s protest to the Chinese Ambassador at London
on June 21, 1949 in connection with the bombing in Shanghai of the British
ship Anchises by Chinese Government planes. Mr.
Bevin’s protest was, as will be noted, couched in strong terms.
Tab B outlines the British reply to the Chinese Government note-respecting
the closing of Chinese ports now under Chinese Communist control. It may be
noted that, whereas our reply (Tab C)27 merely states conditions under which, in our
view, the closing of ports in question could be effected legally, the
British reply goes much further in that it states (1) that the establishment
of a blockade amounts to an assertion of belligerent rights, adding that no
indication has been received that the Chinese National Government recognizes
or is about to recognize the Chinese Communists as having belligerent
status; (2) that according to information available to the British
Government the Chinese Government does not have at its disposal armed forces
to en able it to exercise a real and effective blockade and (3) that the
British Government, on the basis of information presently available to it,
is not prepared to respect the blockade.
[Annex 1—Tab A]
Statement by the British Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs (Bevin)28
I summoned the Chinese Ambassador on June 21st and told him that His
Majesty’s Government were greatly concerned at the bombing [Page 1111] of the Anchises. We had received no notice of Chinese intentions yet
one of our merchant ships had been interfered with in an unwarrantable
fashion on her peaceful course and members of her crew had suffered
injury. The Chinese Government had never claimed belligerent rights. In
default of such a claim we could recognize no blockade. No state of war
existed but in any event, the use of aircraft to dive-bomb an unarmed
ship we regarded as intolerable. It amounted to an unfriendly act. I
trusted that full compensation would be immediately forthcoming.
2. The Ambassador explained that he knew nothing until he read the news
this morning whereupon he had immediately telegraphed to his Government.
He had no reply as yet and could only offer his sincere personal
apologies.
3. I thanked the Ambassador but left him in no doubt that the Cabinet
felt most incensed about this action of the Chinese Air Force. I asked
him to impress upon his Government that I hoped for an immediate
expression of regret and agreement to pay compensation in full. A quick
and generous gesture was needed to make amends.
[Annex 2—Tab B]
Outline of British Response to Chinese Note29
I agree that we should act on similar lines to the Americans. I would not however wish to follow them by specifically
expressing sympathy.
2. Communication which Mr. Coghill30 makes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be
on the following lines:-
It would begin by quoting Chinese communication and go on to state
that this appears to H.M.G. to be a Proclamation of Blockade. In the
opinion of H.M.G. in the U.K. in cases where hostilities are in
progress between the lawful government of a country and insurgent
forces, the proclamation of a blockade by the lawful government
amounts to an assertion of belligerent rights which should be
recognized by outside countries with the further consequence that
such rights are thus automatically conferred upon the insurgent
party. H.M.G. have received no indication from the Chinese
Nationalist Government that they recognize, or are about to
recognize, the Chinese Communists as having belligerent status.
3. In the opinion of H.M.G. moreover a mere decree of a lawful government
purporting to close ports occupied by insurgents without the maintenance
of a real and effective blockade can not be
regarded as valid inasmuch as it constitutes an attempt to secure the
rights of war without regard to the conditions which International Law
attached [Page 1112] to their exercise,
and that such a decree can not therefore be
recognized as resulting in a blockade in the sense of International Law.
According to the information available to H.M.G. the Chinese National
Government have not at their disposal armed
forces which will enable them to exercise a real and effective blockade
over the territorial waters and ports in question. In particular, the
Ports of Tientsin and Chinwangtao have been in the hands of the Chinese
Communists since January 1949 and December 1948 respectively.
4. In view of the above considerations, H.M.G. cannot accept the
announcement referred to above as a valid proclamation of blockade in
International Law and, on the information at present available to them,
they are not prepared to respect it.
5. Mr. Coghill will be instructed to concert action with his U.S.
colleague.
